This assumes of course that the MSPs would actually be able to understand what they were being told.

Somehow I think that in the majority of cases this is rather unlikely

It's not just an energy strategy that we need, we also need a National transport strategy. Scotland can't continue to pretend that it will be business as usual as global oil supplies decline in the coming decades after peak oil circa 2010.

The fact that we're spending £1 billion on rail infrastructure and trains to Edinburgh airport for a 'planned' threefold growth in air travel is sheer stupidity. There won't be the fuel supplies to maintain current levels of flying, let alone afford the expansion. It's all very well having a dream for the economy, but you have to have the energy resources to make it sustainable.

The sad news is that the UK has used up most of its own oil reserves; North Sea output is falling at 13% a year and in a decade we'll be importing most of our oil from ever dwindling global sources.

A far more modest rail scheme should be used to connect the airport to the rail network, a single spur like Glasgow, and the money saved should be used to improve rail access into Waverley for energy efficient high-speed trains.

Good idea to have a rethink on energy, transportation, and the Scottish economy as a whole. It seems dangerously tied to rising house prices.

Let's wait until May when the politicians will have been given a message from the electorate. Time then for a NON POLITICAL but public assessment by experts, and I don't mean the Civil Service. Heaven knows there are plenty of problems.

The Late Sir William: we actually do have a National Transport Strategy, published in December (although I doubt it addresses your concerns).
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Transport/NTS/introduction

As for the proposed energy strategy, I think this is a great idea, but I expect the Executive will respond that energy policy is largely reserved to Westminster. In the current settlement, Scotland is responsible for the promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and have the FREDS group to advise them on renewables.

I can't see a Labour-led Exec changing this and parking their tanks on Westminster's lawn, but things might be different after the May elections.

He says " Why slow the growth of wind turbines"

The answer is easy - they are a completely useless means of electricity generation and at 2000 tonnes of reinforced concrete per turbine base equating to approx 2000 tonnes of Co2 per turbine not to mention roads etc - They are destroying our hills and glens for no purpose other than corporate greed.
At least we know which side of the fence he is on which is a shame as in principle it is a good idea.

Inviting the renewable energy pundits in to the forum is a bit like getting foxes to appraise the security arrangements for your chicken coup.

This deluded chap, David Watt, really thinks that scientists will advise "on the real truth about energy consumption and production, as well as to encourage renewables and self-generation, linked to conservation" Aye, right!

The best that Science can come up with is silly windmills and "windmills under the sea" that can only deliver tiny amounts of electricity when the wind blows or the tide flows and, David, to save you the bother the advice you will get is 'more of the same, but bigger'.

I am currently in discussion with the Canadian Government which has expressed an interest in my invention, GENTEC venturi, that can supply lots of non-intermittent electricity from tidal streams and river flows. I have offered this Scottish invention to the Executive on several occasions FOC and our Ministers are just not interested.

In case anyone else is wondering: I thought nabodican's estimate of 1 tonne CO2 for every tonne of cement was a bit high, so I looked it up. It turns out he's right - e.g. see the Wikipedia article below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement#Environmenta...

(If you include Defra's figures of 430g/kWh for the electricity, it comes to just under 1 tonne.)

However, I had less success trying to confirm that 2000 tonnes of cement are needed per turbine. I thought if anyone could do this it would be the Renewable Energy Foundation, so I found the paper below, which gives a worked example calculating the emissions from the Whinash windfarm.
http://www.viewsofscotland.org/oban_demo/PeatAudit%20-%20...

The REF use a figure of 810kg cement per turbine for this site. I suppose this number might be bigger for larger turbines, or smaller for turbines not built on peaty land.

By the way, I've not been particularly impressed by other REF reports I've seen, but this one comes across as relatively fair and balanced. They come up with a CO2 payback time of 3.5 years for the Whinash site (i.e. it will take this long to save the CO2 used in its construction).

According to their calculation, the payback would be just 13 months were it not for the oxidation of peat damaged by construction. They get their figures from this SNH paper:
http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/polstat/caf.pdf

I've always been a supporter of windfarms, and assumed it would take a couple of years for them to repay their carbon debt, so I don't have a problem with the payback time. However, I am surprised at the enormous amount of CO2 that's stored in peat bogs. If construction damages the hydrology of th

A typical wind turbine base will contain about 1000 cubic meters of concrete weighing 2,500tonnes.

About a third of weight is cement weighing 833 tonnes. This is a far cry from the REF's figure of just 0.810 tonnes per wind turbine base!

In fact the REF are out by a factor of 1028!

The CO2 "payback time" is therefore extended from 3.5 years to 3,600 years

sorry that should read 'cubic metres'

I'm impressed wtih this discussion. You guys have done your homework. Good job!

Greenheatman, I looked at your website and I still don't understand the concept. Can you elaborate a bit more?

Thanks,

We need an independent panel and it should also include members of the public.

We also need an independent panel to ensure the taxpayer is getting good value for money.

All these PFI (private-public) deals results in companies promoting inefficient products just because there is a subsidy.

The taxpayer isn't even consulted but expected to foot the bill, not once but twice.

Sorry Greenheatman - don't blame the REF, I wrote kilos when I meant tonnes (and I also wrote cement when I meant concrete!).

Looking at the REF report more closely, they estimate a total base weight of around 1000 *tonnes* per turbine, of which 880 tonnes is sand and aggregate and 120 tonnes is cement - see page 9 of the REF report.
http://www.viewsofscotland.org/oban_demo/PeatAudit%20-%20...

They use emissions of 0.8 tCO2 per tonne of *cement*, or about 96 tCO2 per turbine base. Including steel manufacture, sand and aggregate extraction brings the total emissions for each 1000 tonne turbine base up to 248 tCO2.

That almost clears things up (for me at least). The REF numbers are close to yours, only they assume
- a 1000 tonne base, rather than 1000 m3
- 12% by weight of cement in the concrete rather than 33%.

I have no idea who's figures are right - where do you get your estimates from?

I understand that Scotland produce much in the way of energy (electric power) that actually leaves the country of Scotland Much like our water, whisky, food produce does and these are some of the many reasons that there are concens from a UK Government and UK Businesses reliant on this energy.

If serious consideration was to be put on this on a Scottish National level requirements and figures would likely change quite dramatically.

#8 Greenheatman & #12 Homer
Please advise. How long is the payback time?
Have attempted this calculation myself but obviously too many brain cells have died over the years.
Does the calculation include carbon footprint of the proposed upgrades to the grid?